In 'right to keep and bear arms', what is an 'arm'?

[Owen Sparks]

The Viet Nam war is a good case study of how a technicaly superior military can be demoralzed by gurilla tactics using only small arms and booby traps.

 

[Wanderling]

Knock, knock! The purpose of the Second Amendment is to create a "second force" of citizenry capable of resisting the power of the state, should the government try to enslave them.

Which means they need weapons capable of fighting the forces of the state on an equal footing.

And the paradoxical outcome of this is, if the people have the ability to successfully resist a tyranicall state, the state will be very reluctant to put the issue to the test.

In strategic terms, we call this "force in being." The presense of the power to successfully resist changes the dynamics of the situation and reduces the liklihood of bloodshed.

I take it you have never been in combat.

I take it you didn't spend too much time studying history.

Please give me a single example of citizens successfully overthrowing a regime by use of arms while the army stayed loyal to the given regime, in a relatively large and well developed country (in a banana republic or Africa, anything goes).

French Revolution started when the troops joined the Parisian protesters, and ended when the Army led by Napoleon staged a coup.
Polish uprising of 1860s was put down by loyal troops. Despite very well armed militia present.
Russian revolution of 1905 was drowned in blood by loyal troops. The revolutionaries were well armed, for the time.
Russian revolution of 1917 succeeded only due to the complete deterioration of the armed forces, with millions of troops deserting and some joining various revolutionary groups. The St Petersburg October coup of 1917 that brought the Commies to power was carried out by, at most, a few thousand men vs a force of under a thousand loyal troops. That's in the country that fielded a 12 million strong army just 3 years earlier.
German revolution of 1918 was carried out by the troops fed up with the war. Had the army stayed loyal to Kaiser, the war would drag on.
Bavarian Communist revolution of about the same time was put down by the troops loyal to the republic.
Spanish Civil War was a revolt of right wing part of the population led by the Army. Have the other countries not intervened, the Fascist would likely have won anyway since they had the army on their side.
British were forced out of India by combination of peaceful protests undermining Army morale (large part of the army units being local troops), deteriorating finances, and popular opinion back home turning against the government politics. Not by armed force.
The fall of communism in Russia was largely an orchestrated affair, with the final fate of the regime decided by top Army brass that refused to support the Communist coup. Have they decided to intervene on Party's behalf, there would be much blood and USSR would still be around (although it would likely look more like North Korea).

Even the American Revolution wasn't won solely by the armed citizenry (even though at that time they could easily match the military in their armaments, if not training / morale). The Brits have been fighting two wars with a tiny regular force half a world away from the home base, their Treasury was running dry, and King wasn't right in the head. Everybody tends to forget, for whatever reason, that they had, at the time, two equally difficult and important tasks - putting down the uprising in Southern colonies, and fighting off the French forces in the North. They lost one, won another, all with a very small number of troops.

My point is, the citizens fighting tyranny can win the war by undermining the morale of the armed forces, but almost never by defeating them. And as the technology progresses, it's getting harder and harder to fight the well trained and equipped army when all you have is small arms, or even RPGs and artillery pieces. And it's pointless anyway, the key in fighting tyranny is not to kill soldiers but to win them over.

 

[Wanderling]

The Viet Nam war is a good case study of how a technicaly superior military can be demoralzed by gurilla tactics using only small arms and booby traps.

The Viet Nam is an example of what happens when the military decisions are made by politicians. Besides, it's different when you're fighting foreign troops - you kill as much as you can and hope that eventually their country will call them back. You're never going to get them change sides.

 

[Wanderling]

"The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to give citizens the ability to fight foreign and domestic government forces if necessary, and prevail."

Zoogster, this is it. Short, sweet, and to the point. People today really don't like talking about resistance or rebellion against their government. But that is EXACTLY what the founders of this country did.

In this case, the 2A could be interpreted as protecting the right of citizens, independently from the government, to form paramilitary organizations (militias) which are well regulated and well trained - but not necessarily the right of individuals who are not part of the organized militia to have arms.

I.e. join militia unit, get your gun. Leave unit, and you can't even carry a knife.

Not sure I would like such an arrangement, but it would fit the purpose of 2A as quoted above.

In our modern world though, the right of individuals to carry arms is required, first and foremost, for self defense. Therefore, in my humble opinion, the arms should fit the purpose. I don't want to be left unarmed in case of an assault by armed thugs, but I also don't want someone to go postal with a legally obtained MRLS. There should be common sense balance.

 

[CapnMac]

I.e. join militia unit, get your gun. Leave unit, and you can't even carry a knife.

Yes, you can argue it that way; and quite a few of the anti's use that exact same argument.

But, remember, the two parts of the Amendment are not equal. To my reading of it, the preparatory phrase is just that; it informs what sorts of arms, and the purpose of the arms. Then, the operative phrase, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, applies.

So, again, to my thinking, the right of the people to be secure in themselves and their belongings easy allows carriage of self-defense arms to suit that task.

The arms of the militia, by my reading of it, ought be military. What, in the days of Madison, Coxe, et al, would have been bayonet and sword and hatchet and spontoon and all the terrible implements of the soldier.

As I see it, there is considerable infringement upon the right of the People to keep and bear their Arms needful as the Militia.

And, while internal and internecine belligerency is highly debatable, there remains the issue of what happens if our standing armed forces are called away, and we encounter a dire need for our un-organized Militia to act?

 

[NoirFan]

Please give me a single example of citizens successfully overthrowing a regime by use of arms while the army stayed loyal to the given regime, in a relatively large and well developed country (in a banana republic or Africa, anything goes).

How would you classify the Communist takeover of China? The Communists were able to drive out the Nationalists by force and as far as I know they did not make effort to win over opposing soldiers. Their appeals for sympathy were directed at civilians instead. Granted, the Nationalists had a lot of other problems to deal with like European interference and the Japanese invasion, but I think it still counts.

I do largely agree with you though. The idea of the citizen-rifleman standing up against a tyrannical military was a myth in George Washington's time and is even more so now. Civilians CAN resist tyranny, but not by trying to match conventional military weaponry.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Please give me a single example of citizens successfully overthrowing a regime by use of arms while the army stayed loyal to the given regime, in a relatively large and well developed country (in a banana republic or Africa, anything goes).

The United States, of course! How do you think we got shut of England? You might also throw in Texas. Consider Cyprus, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia and several similar cases.

And clearly you have studied neither history nor war. You don't know about the American Revolution and fail to understand the concept of the Force-in-Being.

 

[mgregg85]

I've always tried to argue that the second amendment would protect your right to own any individual weapon but not crew served weapons. I believe that any weapon issued to individuals in our armed forces should be legal for civilians too. This tends to stop the "well why can't people have nukes then" argument.